☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 164464" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Parma ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p>Quote: Confused: The points have perhaps been made, but the way it has been laid out this time is different. The purpose is to identify at what level exactly the disagreement begins. So you should not make this particular excuse.</p><p></p><p>Parma: The disagreement begins at you saying thought does not exist. We went through that debate, and the end has come to this meaningless exercise.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: Red">C: I say thoughts do not exist and you say it does, and that’s it? I want to find out what you think about other aspects of phenomena so as to see what the difficulty is and you say it is a meaningless exercise?</span></p><p><span style="color: Red">What if I said that you are copping out from a difficult exercise for fear of your own weakness being exposed?</span></p><p><span style="color: Red">I suggest that you prove that I’m wrong by responding one by one to all those propositions I put forward. </span></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Quote: Confused: It is your own ignorance which is projecting this. </p><p>I asked you to give your opinion to each of my propositions. You should therefore state and give reason as to which of those propositions stand as hypothesis. To suggest that it is all hypothesis and then go on to say that I do it to suppress knowledge is not fair. </p><p></p><p>Parma: Your basis of knowledge of the concept of no thought, is a hypothesis you have no facts to back it no scientific facts at all.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: You want scientific facts when both of us are in fact having the experience now and can refer to it, something which a scientist will also have to do in order to be able to say anything worthwhile about the subject? Indeed this is something without which, I wouldn’t be able to write this message nor you be able to read it, or the scientist to come up with any answer about it.</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p><span style="color: red">So it is not I who is putting forward a hypothesis, but you, who in referring to scientific fact, is looking for one, and this is due to your not knowing reality.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Parma: Please prove the facts, otherwise I can conclude that you are giving a baseless hypothesis on that thoughts do not exist.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: In putting forward all those propositions, this is just what I was attempting to do. Let’s say then, that you make an attempt to respond to it the way I suggested.</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p> Parma: P.s. You wanted to change the wording of Object of thought to concept of thought. </p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: Apparently you did not carefully read what I wrote.</span></p><p><span style="color: red">I differentiate thought from thinking and suggested that the former is the object of the latter. I said that thought does not exist, so why would I then go on to say that thought has an object? Neither did I refer anywhere to “concept of thought”. What I did was to suggest that if you wish to limit “thought” to a meaning other than what I use, we can replace thought with concept as being object of thinking. To recap:</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p><span style="color: red">Thoughts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks thoughts. If you do not like the way I use the word “thought”, we can replace it with “concept”. So we then have concepts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks concepts.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Parma: Why dont you just call it thought as that is what we were debating, thought is a word it has a meaning a definition in the dictionary. You say it does not exist.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: If you wish to stick to the dictionary meaning, then we should replace thought with “concept”. But this is from one dictionary:</span></p><p><span style="color: red">THOUGHT</span></p><p><span style="color: red">Noun:</span></p><p><span style="color: red">1. the act or process of thinking; deliberation, meditation, or reflection</span></p><p><span style="color: red">2. a concept, opinion, or idea</span></p><p><span style="color: red">3. philosophical or intellectual ideas typical of a particular time or place German thought in the 19th century</span></p><p><span style="color: red">4. application of mental attention; consideration he gave the matter some thought</span></p><p><span style="color: red">5. purpose or intention I have no thought of giving up</span></p><p><span style="color: red">6. expectation no thought of reward</span></p><p><span style="color: red">7. a small amount; trifle you could be a thought more enthusiastic</span></p><p><span style="color: red">8. kindness or regard he has no thought for his widowed mother</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p><span style="color: red">The way I have been using it is as in number 2. You should not unnecessarily argue with me about this, given how I have been using it is quite clear. If you wish to debate semantics, don’t bother doing it with me. I’m interested in discussing about reality and not the labels. If you consider any word I use inappropriate, I’d even accept a new word invented by you. But let’s not waste time arguing about such things.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p> Parma: I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words.</p><p></p><p>Quote: Confused: It is very possible that the fault lies in my own denseness. But you’ll have to try some more to prove that to me.</p><p></p><p>Parma: I believe I have through all my postings</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: If I have used a great many words, it is with the intention to be as clear as possible. Indeed you should try to match that, and if you can’t just say so and it is fine. But don't go on to speak as though you have done a great job whereas I have failed. </span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Quote: Parma: Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors.</p><p></p><p>Quote: Confused: So your enemies are those outside of you and not your own accumulated unwholesome tendencies? Right, after all you are the “one Sikh” of Guru Gobind Singh ji, your mind must be more or less cleansed of impurities. </p><p></p><p>Parma: You are making assumptions here! I have not stated that I am the only one sikh the whole world is sikh = student, this is going off topic a bit and could be discussed at a later addition.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: I did not imply that you were the only one, but the one that I now know with the particular qualification.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Parma: I have not stated that I have any higher qualities as you are assuming, I have constantly written about me being a sikh and constantly learning.</p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C:This is from your original post:</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p><span style="color: red">Quote:</span></p><p><span style="color: red">Before I go I would like to add that your style is familiar with the Mughal rulers of India that tried to suppress Sikhism. You are hypothesising to suppress knowledge with your formation of language. I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words. Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors. My few humble words and statements have sure given truths to my sentences, whether you regard them as so is your interpretation of it.</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p><span style="color: red">Although I was being somewhat sarcastic, this apparently was not without a base.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Parma: You seem to be aware on how to totally break free from unwholesome tendencies, but fact is it is all contradiction</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: My understanding is mostly at the intellectual level, hence light years away from being free of unwholesome tendencies. </span></p><p><span style="color: red">How did I contradict myself?</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Parma: you are constantly breaking and learning even a thought at the pinnacle of peace it is constantly adapting and changing and forming that is why god is the unknowable. What I am stating is I am a sikh I am willing to learn only I will not take miss information as learning it is a hinderance to learning.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: If you would care to go step by step, I will be able to provide arguments to support the suggestion that yours is in fact learning that is based entirely on concepts which can never be proven through experience, but only through reliance on agreed upon convention, or in other words, by force of thinking.</span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Parma: Just like your assumption that thought does not exist. Sorry if I have not been clear on the above explaination. What I am getting at is that one truthful word is paramount to a thousand miss conceptions of dense untruthful words</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: I invite you to start from the very beginning to find out if in fact what I stated is based on assumption.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Parma: To stand up to oppression is a humble act. You may not think so. I do. As my individual importance of existance is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression </p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: To stand up to oppression while coming from the perception of “I” vs. “they” is most definitely not a humble act. Any attempt at further qualification by such suggestions as “my individual importance of existence is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression” is just a game played by conceit.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Quote: Confused: Poetic. But too bad, I don't like poetry and have no regard for poets.</p><p></p><p>Parma: It is quite sad that you have such unwholesome tendencies towards poems, it is a shame as civilised cultures have given birth to such beautiful literature through poetry. The Guru Granth Sahib ji is compositions of beautiful raag's, some individuals may call it very poetic aswell. Your loss you are missing out on a whole world of literature that may help you on your journey to relieve these unwholesome tendencies</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red">C: You would not consider the different authors in the Guru Granth Sahib as poets, of course.</span></p><p> <span style="color: red"></span></p><p><span style="color: red">I used to like poetry such as those by Wordsworth and Rilke, and I heard poets being praised for their ability to see things which the average person is incapable of. Later however, after having some understanding about reality, I came to the conclusion that both the poet and those who praise them are in fact “uninstructed worldlings”, namely those who have absolutely no clue as to what reality / Truth is. </span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p><span style="color: red">Therefore although my dislike for poetry may in fact be aversion, hence unwholesome and wrong, my having no regard for poets is however not. And if I point out their wrongness to other people, this must in fact be a good thing. If you can’t appreciate this, the loss is yours, not mine. </span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 164464, member: 586"] Parma ji, Quote: Confused: The points have perhaps been made, but the way it has been laid out this time is different. The purpose is to identify at what level exactly the disagreement begins. So you should not make this particular excuse. Parma: The disagreement begins at you saying thought does not exist. We went through that debate, and the end has come to this meaningless exercise. [COLOR="Red"]C: I say thoughts do not exist and you say it does, and that’s it? I want to find out what you think about other aspects of phenomena so as to see what the difficulty is and you say it is a meaningless exercise? What if I said that you are copping out from a difficult exercise for fear of your own weakness being exposed? I suggest that you prove that I’m wrong by responding one by one to all those propositions I put forward. [/COLOR] Quote: Confused: It is your own ignorance which is projecting this. I asked you to give your opinion to each of my propositions. You should therefore state and give reason as to which of those propositions stand as hypothesis. To suggest that it is all hypothesis and then go on to say that I do it to suppress knowledge is not fair. Parma: Your basis of knowledge of the concept of no thought, is a hypothesis you have no facts to back it no scientific facts at all. [COLOR="red"]C: You want scientific facts when both of us are in fact having the experience now and can refer to it, something which a scientist will also have to do in order to be able to say anything worthwhile about the subject? Indeed this is something without which, I wouldn’t be able to write this message nor you be able to read it, or the scientist to come up with any answer about it. So it is not I who is putting forward a hypothesis, but you, who in referring to scientific fact, is looking for one, and this is due to your not knowing reality.[/COLOR] Parma: Please prove the facts, otherwise I can conclude that you are giving a baseless hypothesis on that thoughts do not exist. [COLOR="red"]C: In putting forward all those propositions, this is just what I was attempting to do. Let’s say then, that you make an attempt to respond to it the way I suggested. [/COLOR] Parma: P.s. You wanted to change the wording of Object of thought to concept of thought. [COLOR="red"]C: Apparently you did not carefully read what I wrote. I differentiate thought from thinking and suggested that the former is the object of the latter. I said that thought does not exist, so why would I then go on to say that thought has an object? Neither did I refer anywhere to “concept of thought”. What I did was to suggest that if you wish to limit “thought” to a meaning other than what I use, we can replace thought with concept as being object of thinking. To recap: Thoughts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks thoughts. If you do not like the way I use the word “thought”, we can replace it with “concept”. So we then have concepts are object of thinking or in other words, thinking thinks concepts.[/COLOR] Parma: Why dont you just call it thought as that is what we were debating, thought is a word it has a meaning a definition in the dictionary. You say it does not exist. [COLOR="red"]C: If you wish to stick to the dictionary meaning, then we should replace thought with “concept”. But this is from one dictionary: THOUGHT Noun: 1. the act or process of thinking; deliberation, meditation, or reflection 2. a concept, opinion, or idea 3. philosophical or intellectual ideas typical of a particular time or place German thought in the 19th century 4. application of mental attention; consideration he gave the matter some thought 5. purpose or intention I have no thought of giving up 6. expectation no thought of reward 7. a small amount; trifle you could be a thought more enthusiastic 8. kindness or regard he has no thought for his widowed mother The way I have been using it is as in number 2. You should not unnecessarily argue with me about this, given how I have been using it is quite clear. If you wish to debate semantics, don’t bother doing it with me. I’m interested in discussing about reality and not the labels. If you consider any word I use inappropriate, I’d even accept a new word invented by you. But let’s not waste time arguing about such things.[/COLOR] Parma: I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words. Quote: Confused: It is very possible that the fault lies in my own denseness. But you’ll have to try some more to prove that to me. Parma: I believe I have through all my postings [COLOR="red"]C: If I have used a great many words, it is with the intention to be as clear as possible. Indeed you should try to match that, and if you can’t just say so and it is fine. But don't go on to speak as though you have done a great job whereas I have failed. [/COLOR] Quote: Parma: Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors. Quote: Confused: So your enemies are those outside of you and not your own accumulated unwholesome tendencies? Right, after all you are the “one Sikh” of Guru Gobind Singh ji, your mind must be more or less cleansed of impurities. Parma: You are making assumptions here! I have not stated that I am the only one sikh the whole world is sikh = student, this is going off topic a bit and could be discussed at a later addition. [COLOR="red"]C: I did not imply that you were the only one, but the one that I now know with the particular qualification.[/COLOR] Parma: I have not stated that I have any higher qualities as you are assuming, I have constantly written about me being a sikh and constantly learning. [COLOR="red"]C:This is from your original post: Quote: Before I go I would like to add that your style is familiar with the Mughal rulers of India that tried to suppress Sikhism. You are hypothesising to suppress knowledge with your formation of language. I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words. Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors. My few humble words and statements have sure given truths to my sentences, whether you regard them as so is your interpretation of it. Although I was being somewhat sarcastic, this apparently was not without a base.[/COLOR] Parma: You seem to be aware on how to totally break free from unwholesome tendencies, but fact is it is all contradiction [COLOR="red"]C: My understanding is mostly at the intellectual level, hence light years away from being free of unwholesome tendencies. How did I contradict myself?[/COLOR] Parma: you are constantly breaking and learning even a thought at the pinnacle of peace it is constantly adapting and changing and forming that is why god is the unknowable. What I am stating is I am a sikh I am willing to learn only I will not take miss information as learning it is a hinderance to learning. [COLOR="red"]C: If you would care to go step by step, I will be able to provide arguments to support the suggestion that yours is in fact learning that is based entirely on concepts which can never be proven through experience, but only through reliance on agreed upon convention, or in other words, by force of thinking. [/COLOR] Parma: Just like your assumption that thought does not exist. Sorry if I have not been clear on the above explaination. What I am getting at is that one truthful word is paramount to a thousand miss conceptions of dense untruthful words [COLOR="red"]C: I invite you to start from the very beginning to find out if in fact what I stated is based on assumption.[/COLOR] Parma: To stand up to oppression is a humble act. You may not think so. I do. As my individual importance of existance is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression [COLOR="red"]C: To stand up to oppression while coming from the perception of “I” vs. “they” is most definitely not a humble act. Any attempt at further qualification by such suggestions as “my individual importance of existence is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression” is just a game played by conceit.[/COLOR] Quote: Confused: Poetic. But too bad, I don't like poetry and have no regard for poets. Parma: It is quite sad that you have such unwholesome tendencies towards poems, it is a shame as civilised cultures have given birth to such beautiful literature through poetry. The Guru Granth Sahib ji is compositions of beautiful raag's, some individuals may call it very poetic aswell. Your loss you are missing out on a whole world of literature that may help you on your journey to relieve these unwholesome tendencies [COLOR="red"]C: You would not consider the different authors in the Guru Granth Sahib as poets, of course. I used to like poetry such as those by Wordsworth and Rilke, and I heard poets being praised for their ability to see things which the average person is incapable of. Later however, after having some understanding about reality, I came to the conclusion that both the poet and those who praise them are in fact “uninstructed worldlings”, namely those who have absolutely no clue as to what reality / Truth is. Therefore although my dislike for poetry may in fact be aversion, hence unwholesome and wrong, my having no regard for poets is however not. And if I point out their wrongness to other people, this must in fact be a good thing. If you can’t appreciate this, the loss is yours, not mine. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top